Paul L. Caron
Dean


Tuesday, February 2, 2010

NLJ: Temporary Estate Tax Repeal Creates Boom for Lawyers

National Law Journal, Estate Lawyers Hustle Over Nothing; Expired Tax Leads to Hours of File Review and Still Unknown Questions, by Lynne Marek:

[For lawyers] who specialize in trusts and estates law, the year has started with a rush. Lawyers across the country are scrambling to field calls from clients worried about how the one-year lapse in the estate tax affects their legal documents. They're sifting through client files to pinpoint those at greatest risk of facing complications and contacting clients by e-mail, phone and letter. They're preparing to revamp wills, trusts and wealth-transfer documents. ...

"It's almost like a lawyers relief act because clients have to examine their documents to figure out if they're protected or not," said Andrew Gelman, a Chicago partner at Holland & Knight. "I don't want to call it chaos, but everything is in limbo," he said.

The lapse of the estate tax, and related levies such as the generation-skipping tax, is creating a burst of demand in a legal specialty that has slowed in recent years because higher tax exemptions have left fewer people in need of sophisticated estate-planning advice. The current demand is likely to last at least a year, lawyers say. They also predict a surge of litigation, which could last several years, as family fights break out over the lack of clarity in documents for those who die this year.

Handler pointed to one client couple who face what is probably the most common problem. The couple, including a husband in poor health, have a $35 million estate. In the event of his death, their estate plan grants their children as much money not covered by the estate tax as possible, with the wife receiving the remainder. As of Jan. 1, that means the children will get everything and the wife will get nothing if the husband dies this year. Aside from that key issue, a host of complicated formulas for calculating the most advantageous distribution of funds have been thrown off by the lapsed tax.

Although trusts and estates lawyers generally are seeing longer hours that will result in more billing, most don't expect there to be enough work in the end to merit hiring more attorneys.

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/02/nlj-estate-tax-repeal.html

News, Tax | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef0128774823d5970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NLJ: Temporary Estate Tax Repeal Creates Boom for Lawyers:

Comments

I thought just about all legislation was a lawyers relief act. I thought that is what legistor-attorneys did was to think up stuff so lawyers can have more work.

Posted by: Greg Oman | Feb 2, 2010 10:57:37 AM

>>. In the event of his death, their estate plan grants their children as much money not covered by the estate tax as possible, with the wife receiving the remainder. As of Jan. 1, that means the children will get everything and the wife will get nothing if the husband dies this year. <<

Not sure what state they're referring to, but in most states the spouse could still "elect" to receive a 1/3 statutory share of the estate [which includes non-probabte assets] so they would not get "nothing".

Posted by: H Tuttle | Feb 2, 2010 11:11:37 AM

Greg Oman is spot on. The law is a racket, with it's practitioners controlling both supply AND demand.

Posted by: right | Feb 2, 2010 11:16:20 AM

Screw me now or screw me later.

The estate tax went away but limits are placed on basis stepup.

Posted by: Emmett Flatus | Feb 2, 2010 11:38:19 AM

Next week: "Barking dogs create boom for lawyers."

Posted by: Kevin | Feb 2, 2010 11:41:13 AM

Forced spousal share comments: It depends - some states (like Illinois) don't recognize a surviving spouse's right to enforce a statutory share from non-probate assets, like assets in a trust (undoubtedly the planning vehicle of choice for such a large estate).

More importantly, it is unlikely that the $35 million passes outright to the children but more likely that it does so in trust (and changes could be added to make the spouse a discretionary beneficiary of that trust). The real problem is the carryover basis and allocating new basis under the current (confusing and unworkable) scheme - unless the spouse is the sole beneficiary of the new trust, her $3.0 in new basis will go unused. We have planned for this since 2002, but it is still disquieting and disheartening to have no idea what is going to happen and to be scurrying around with last minute fixes that will only work for 11 months.

Posted by: Janet Rae Montgomery | Feb 2, 2010 1:45:36 PM

Not to deny the point that the original story makes, it should be pointed out that the hypothetical $35 million estate does not leave the wife high and dry. It is not true that "the wife gets nothing" under most estate plans. Most plans will provide that she will get the net income of the estate, probably around $2 million per year, plus discretionary distributions of 5% of the corpus, another $1.75 million, plus discretionary additional distributions without limit so long as they are used for her health, education, maintenance and support. And most plans will provide that she is the trustee and thus can make those decisions for herself.

So she does not have to move to the YWCA quite yet.

Posted by: M. Sean Fosmire | Feb 2, 2010 8:23:30 PM